Did the Indian removal policy, and the conflicts waged in order to implement it, meet the criteria of a just war by Aquinas’ standards?
Watch the Carnegie Endowment Lecture video about the morality of professional soldiers serving in an unjust war. See link at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-2Z0FsViJE
Read Chapters 3 and 4 in The ethics of war and peace: An introduction to legal and moral issues: 978-0-13-092383-7
Read Indian Removal Act of 1830 at https://www.nativehistoryassociation.org/removal.php
Write a 500-750 word paper on the following topic.
Thomas Aquinas, as discussed in the text (pp. 49-53), noted three criteria (among others) for a just war:
1. To amend an injustice perpetrated by another state.
2. To address an injustice perpetrated by residents of another state.
3. To re-acquire (take back) property or possessions unjustly seized by another state.
He also advanced the theory of double effect which states that, when considering the possible good/bad effects of any act of aggression, such aggression is ethically permissible if:
1. Its bad effects are unintended.
2. The bad effects don’t outweigh the magnitude of the good effects.
3. There are no alternatives to the aggression that could avoid the bad effect.
In addition, St. Augustine added that the final objective of a just war must always be peace (42).
Between 1820 and 1860 in the United States, there were numerous Native American (Indian) nations and tribes still living in vast territories east of the Mississippi River. In 1824 President Monroe suggested that all Indians be moved—either voluntarily or forcibly, if necessary—west of the Mississippi, in order to remove threats to Americans living nearby and to make room for the development and settlement of this undeveloped area for millions of Americans needing the land and resources. In 1829-30 President Andrew Jackson obtained legislative support for this action and supporters of the Indian removal policy cited several reasons in support of its morality:
1. The protection of American citizens who had been coming into conflict with Indians living around these areas.
2. The protection and safety of the Indians themselves, who had long been suffering from poverty, disease, and rapidly decreasing populations because of prior wars, disease, and displacements.
3. Many of these territories had been claimed and recognized for a long time as U.S. territories (after prior wars with Indians there) but only remained unoccupied because Indians were still living there.
4. The needs of millions of Americans who wanted access to these lands/resources as compared with the needs of relatively few thousands of Indians who lived poorly, didn’t develop the land, and could live elsewhere just as easily.
The U.S. Supreme Court, under Justice John Marshall, considered the U.S. government’s claims against the Indians via two cases brought against the U.S. government in 1831 by the Cherokee tribe. The Court concluded that the United States had made legitimate and binding treaties recognizing the territorial sovereignty of the tribe over this land, and ruled that the United States could not legally force them to relinquish it. President Jackson, however, did not agree with the Court’s ruling and said, “John Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.”
The removal policy thus went forward, eventually relocating most Indian tribes to unfamiliar lands west of the Mississippi. Several tribes, such as the Seminoles, fought successfully against relocation, but the vast majority were moved by the thousands, resulting in thousands dying of starvation, disease, and fighting with U.S. soldiers along the way. The land onto which they were relocated was largely unfit for hunting, and they became even more demoralized and impoverished after being re-settled there. Their former territories did, however, become prosperous and populous regions of the United States and the cultivation and commercial exploitation of these lands increased prosperity for millions of Americans.
• Did the Indian removal policy, and the conflicts waged in order to implement it, meet the criteria of a just war by Aquinas’ standards?
• Did it violate the principle of double effect?
• Did it violate or satisfy St. Augustine’s additional criteria for just war?
• Was the U.S. government’s argument a valid and an ethical one? What would have been a reasonable and ethical policy, in your opinion?
Tyke and family communication: the setting The scene demonstrates Eaton Kerr, a baby, in a glad and lively family photograph shoot with different individuals from his family. These relatives are his mom, Kerry; his dad, Jonathan; and his hovering 8 year old sibling, Jordan. The Kerr family lives in Northern Ireland. Kerry is obviously captivated of her son. In her own words, she "can't stand to be far from him" and could simply "eat him up". This is likely increased by the way that Eaton had been an unproblematic newborn child, who rested soundly, ate well and seldom cried. Kerry and Jonathan obviously had a simple time in the initial couple of months after his introduction to the world. This is obvious in the easygoing and loose way that can be seen with the whole family. Be that as it may, one and a half years after the fact, Kerry is longing for a child young lady. Having already lost two female kids, and at present raising two young men, Kerry strives after a female kid. A scene in which she strokes her canine's head longingly could maybe be a marker of the amount she aches for another youngster. Kerry has a propensity for potential deadly blood clumps, which is normally expanded in pregnancy. In spite of past therapeutic intricacies and an unmistakable comprehension of the related dangers, Kerry is resolved to seek after her fantasy. She is set up for the clinic for a restorative output to survey potential danger of cerebrovascular or cardiovascular occasions amid pregnancy. The outcomes are overwhelming and affirm that a pregnancy could be lifethreatening for the youthful mother. Justifiably, Kerry is discouraged by the guess, and after four months, regardless she has not grapple with the results of the output. Her serious levels of despondency come full circle in clinical misery: she is interminably troubled and tired; has lost all inspiration to complete even unremarkable ordinary assignments; and finds no delight in things that ordinarily make her glad (anhedonia). The loss of her two infant young ladies in the past gives off an impression of being always at the forefront of her thoughts and she keeps photograph sweeps of the fetuses which would fill in as a consistent negative update. The way that she has named these two posterity (Jordana and Caitlin) demonstrates the profundity of the connection she feels for them. Moreover, it appears she has as of late lost her dad - all these are course reading triggers for clinical melancholy. Utilizing the DSM-1 grouping of emotional well-being maladies, Kerry's despondency would be named serious, as she admits to having had self-destructive considerations. Depressed moms think that its hard to react to their youngsters' needs. In a poor endeavor to train her little child, Kerry tries to execute strict childhood rules which are regularly not appropriate to Eaton's formative stage. This is unmistakably confirmed by the proof of Eaton's comparing hindered improvement. In any case, the young man is appeared as endeavoring to comply with his mom, just getting to be insubordinate at the frequently feared sleep time and so forth, along these lines hinting at his first fight for freedom at eighteen months. Poor rest cleanliness that is normal among discouraged patients is additionally turned out to be tricky in the mother-kid relationship. In the video, characterizing people as per their rest designs, Eaton is sorted as a songbird - ahead of schedule to informal lodging to wake; while Kerry is a negating owl - who is up till late around evening time and, therefore, remains in bed till late toward the evening. This implies Eaton is frequently up, for quite a long time, now and again for up to three and a half hours, sobbing for his mom before he gets any consideration. He is losing various fights for his autonomy in this 'power battle and is discovering that he has no influence over his condition. In spite of the fact that it isn't voiced in the tape, the steady nonappearance of Eaton's dad, Jonathan, recommends conceivable family issues. He needs to leave for work right on time as he helps maintain the family vitality business, and gives off an impression of being willfully ignorant of the issues in his home. Along these lines, Kerry is likely experiencing these troublesome circumstances alone. Without the key family and social help, her despondency is probably going to intensify and would basically antagonistically affect on her son. >GET ANSWER